Adverse Possession is a means upon which land can be lost by the true owner and gained by a squatter. This can occur legally when the squatter takes actual possession of the disputed land with the intention of excluding the true owner from possession, and that the true owner was effectively excluded from possession in circumstances where the act of possession is open, notorious, peaceful, adverse, exclusive, actual, and continuous for at least ten years.
The interesting twist in this case was that the land in issue belonged to the City. The City didn’t contest the fact that the squatter did everything correctly to acquire the land through adverse possession (ie: they built a fence around the City’s parcel and occupied it for decades). The City argued that the law of adverse possession didn’t apply to municipal lands. The court agreed.
The court noted, amongst other things, that:
“The City is simply unable to patrol all its lands against such adverse possessors. The courts cannot demand the same vigilance of a private landowner to watch its borders of a public entity. I find that a private individual must not be able to acquire title by encroaching on public lands and fencing off portions for their private use in the manner of two private property owners. These lands, as originally acquired, were for a “very high public interest”. In these circumstances, the private landowner may not proceed to fence off public lands and exclude the public and succeed in a claim for adverse possession.
As a matter of public policy, this would be a dangerous precedent if allowed.”
Kosicki v. City of Toronto, 2022 ONSC 3473
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc3473/2022onsc3473.html